It is well known that in Britain there are two workers’
parties: the British Socialist Party, as the Social-Democrats now call
themselves, and the so-called Independent Labour Party.

This split in the British workers’ socialist movement is no
accident. It originated long ago. It arose out of the specific features of
British history. Capitalism developed in Britain before it did in any other
country, and for a long time Britain was the “workshop” of the
world. This exceptional, monopoly position created relatively tolerable
conditions of life for the labour aristocracy, i.e., for the
minority of skilled, well-paid workers in Britain.

Hence the petty-bourgeois, craft spirit in the ranks of this labour
aristocracy, which has been divorcing itself from its class, following in
the wake of the Liberals, and treating socialism contemptuously as a
“utopia”. The Independent Labour Party is a party of liberal labour
policy. It is justly said that this Party is “independent” only of
socialism, but very dependent on liberalism.

In recent times Britain’s monopoly has been thoroughly undermined. The
previous relatively tolerable conditions of life have given way to extreme
want as a consequence of the high cost of living. The class struggle is
becoming immensely intensified, and along with this the basis for
opportunism, the former basis for the spread of the ideas of liberal labour
policy among the working class, is being undermined.

So long as these ideas persisted among considerable numbers of British
workers, elimination of the split among the workers was out of the
question. Unity cannot be created by phrases and desires, so long
as the Social-Democrats
have to fight against liberal labour policy. At the present time,
however, this unity is really becoming possible, be cause the
protest against liberal labour policy is growing in the
Independent Labour Party itself.

Before us lies the official report of the latest, Twentieth, Annual
Conference of that Party, held at Merthyr on May 27 and 28, 1912. The
debate on parliamentary policy given in the report is extremely
interesting; essentially it was a debate on a deeper issue, that of
Social-Democratic and liberal labour policies, although the speakers did
not use these terms.

The Conference debate was opened by Jowett, M.P. He moved a resolution
against supporting the Liberals, of which we shall speak in greater detail
below, and a fellow-thinker, Conway, who seconded the motion, said plainly:
“The aver age worker is asking the question whether the Labour Party in
Parliament has a view of its own.” Suspicion is growing among the workers
that the Labour Party is “tied” to the Liberals. “A feeling is growing
in the country that the Labour Party is simply a wing of the Liberal
Party.” It should be observed that the Parliamentary Labour Party consists
not only of I.L.P. M.P.s, but also of M.P.s sponsored by trade
unions. These call themselves Labour M.P.s and Labour Party members, and
do not belong to the I.L.P. The British opportunists have
succeeded in doing what the opportunists in other countries are frequently
inclined to do, namely, in combining opportunist “socialist” M.P.s with
the M.P.s of allegedly non-party trade unions. The notorious “broad labour
party”, of which certain Mensheviks spoke in Russia in 1906–07, has
materialised in Britain, and only in Britain.

To give practical expression to his views, Jowett moved a resolution,
drawn up in the truly “British” manner, that is, without any general
principles (the British pride them selves on their “practicality” and
their dislike for general principles; this is just another expression of
the craft spirit in the labour movement). The resolution called on the
Labour group in the House of Commons to ignore all threats that
the Liberal government might find itself in a minority and so be compelled
to resign, and to vote steadfastly on the merits of the questions
brought before them.

Jowett’s motion “took the bull by the horns”. The Liberal Cabinet in
Britain, like the entire Liberal Party, is doing its utmost to persuade the
workers that all forces must be united against reaction (i.e., against the
Conservative Party), that the Liberal majority must be preserved, for it
may melt away if the workers do not vote with the Liberals, and that the
workers must not isolate themselves but must support the Liberals. And so
Jowett puts the question clearly: vote “steadfastly”, ignore the threat
that the Liberal government may fall, do not vote as the interests of the
Liberal Party require it, but on the merits of the questions, i.e., in
Marxist language—pursue an independent proletarian class policy and not a
liberal labour policy.

(In the ranks of the Independent Labour Party, Marxism is rejected
on principle, and that is why Marxist language is not used at
all.)

The opportunists, who predominate in the Party, immediately attacked
Jowett. And—characteristically—they did it exactly as opportunists, in
a roundabout way, by an evasion. They did not want to say plainly
that they were in favour of supporting the Liberals. They
expressed their idea in general phrases, and, of course, did not
fail to mention the “independence” of the working class. Just like our
liquidators, who always shout especially loudly about the “independence”
of the working class whenever they are in fact preparing to
replace its independence by a liberal labour policy.

Murray, the representative of the opportunist majority, moved an
amendment, i.e., counter-resolution, as follows:

“That this Conference recognises that the Labour Party,
in order to effectually carry out its object, must continue to regard all
the possible consequences and effects, immediate and otherwise, of any line
of action before adopting it, bearing in mind that its decisions must be
guided solely by consideration for its own interest as a party. and by
desire to increase its opportunities for attaining its ends.”

Compare the two motions. Jowett’s motion clearly demanded a break with
the policy of supporting the Liberals. Murray’s consisted of meaningless
commonplaces, quite plausible and at first sight indisputable, but
in fact serving to disguise precisely the policy of
supporting the Liberals. Had Murray been acquainted with Marx, and had he
been speaking to people who respected Marxism, he would have thought
nothing of sweetening his opportunism with Marxist turns of speech and
saying that Marxism demands that all the concrete circumstances of each
particular case should be taken into consideration, that we must not tie
our hands, that while preserving our independence we “take advantage of
conflicts”, “seize at the Achilles heel of the contradictions” in the
present regime, and so on and so forth.

Opportunism can be expressed in terms of any doctrine you
like, including Marxism. The peculiarity of the “destiny of Marxism”
in Russia lies precisely in the fact that not only opportunism in the
workers’ party, but also opportunism in the liberal party (Izgoyev and
Co.), likes to dress itself in Marxist “terms”! But that is by
the way. Let us return to Merthyr.

“What are the interests of a political party?” he asked. “Are the
interests of the party merely to be served by retaining men in the House of
Commons? If the interests of the party are to be considered, then the men
and women who are outside Parliament have as much right to be considered as
the men in Parliament. As a socialist organisation we should try to give
effect to our principles in our political activities.”

And McLachlan referred to the vote on the Heswell Reformatory case. A
boy inmate of the reformatory had been tortured to death. A question was
asked in Parliament. The Liberal Cabinet was threatened with defeat:
Britain is not Prussia, and a Cabinet that is in the minority must
resign. And so, to save the Cabinet, the Labour M.P.s voted in favour of
whitewashing the torturer.

The Labour Party, said McLachlan, keeps on taking into account the
effect which their vote might have on the fate of the government, thinking
that should the Cabinet fall, Parliament would be dissolved and a new
general election announced. But that was nothing to be afraid of. The fall
of the Cabinet and the announcement of new elections would result in a
combination of the two bourgeois parties (McLachlan simply said:
the “other two parties”, without the word “bourgeois”. The British do
not like Marxist terms!), and the sooner that happened, the better for
our movement. The words of our propagandists should be carried into
effect by
the work of our men in the House. Until that was done, the Tory (i.e.,
Conservative) workman would never believe there was any difference
between the Liberal and Labour Parties. Even if we lost every seat in
the House through upholding our principles, it would do more good than
attempts to coax a Liberal government into making concessions!

“It is not true to say that the Labour Party upholds the
balance of power. The Liberals and Irishmen in the House can outvote the
Tory and Labour members.... In the case of the Heswell Reformatory I voted
for the government purely on the merits of the case, and not in support of
the government. The superintendent had been guilty of harshness and
cruelty, and every Labour member went to the House determined to vote
against the government. But during the debate the other side was put, and
it showed that although the superintendent had been guilty of cruel
treatment, the record of the School was the best in the Kingdom. Under
those circumstances it would have been wrong to vote against the
government.... [Such is the p ass to which the British opportunists have
brought the Labour Party: the leader was not howled down for that sort of
speech, but was listened to calmly!]

“The real trouble is hot with the I. L. P. members, but
that when the Labour Party took over the Miners’ Federation, and the
miners’ members joined the Labour group, they were Liberals, and
they have not changed their opinions, since they gave a purely
nominal adherence to the Party....

“Jowett’s resolution reduces Parliamentary government to
absurdity. The consequences of any vote must be considered....

“I would advise the previous question as regards both
the resolution and the amendment.” (!!!)

“It is not so foolish as Keir Hardie would have us
suppose. It does not mean that in voting upon a question every
consideration should be ignored but only the consideration as to
what effect it would have on the government. I got into the socialist
movement through sheer disgust with political caucuses and bosses, and the
control of the House of Commons by such people. My experience has been that
every question that comes up for discussion has to be discussed in regard
to its probable effect on the fortunes of the government of the day.

“It makes it almost impossible for the Labour Party to
differentiate itself from the Liberal Party. I do not know of any
particular piece of legislation in connection with which the Labour Party
has in any kind of way differentiated itself from the Liberals. We as a
party were part and parcel of the government in regard to the Insurance
Act.... The Labour Party voted steadily for the Bill, and stood by the
government all the way through.

“I was ashamed of the vote over the Heswell
Reformatory. When a man poured boiling water over a boy until he died I
felt ashamed of ... voting for the whitewashing of that man. On that
occasion the Labour Party whips ran about the House bringing up their men
to prevent the government being defeated.... To accustom men ... to voting
against their consciences is deadly for the future of democracy in this
country....”

Philip Snowden, M.P., one of the most rabid Opportunists, wriggled like
an eel. He said:

“My fighting instinct inclines me to support the
resolution, but my common sense, judgement, and experience induce me to
vote for the amendment. I agree that the present Parliamentary system has a
demoralising effect upon those who went to the House moved by idealism and
political enthusiasm. But I do not believe the adoption of Jowett’s
resolution will make much difference. The merits of a question are not
confined to the particular question itself. There are certain issues which
the Labour Party considers of greater importance than any possible
consequences of voting for the government—Women’s Suffrage is one—but
are we to disregard consequences on every paltry issue? This policy would
necessitate repeated General Elections and nothing is more irritating to
the public than such con tests.... Politics means compromise.”

The opportunists carried the day. That is not surprising in an
opportunist party like the British I.L.P. But it is now a fully established
fact that opportunism is giving rise to an opposition in the ranks of this
very Party.

The opponents of opportunism acted far more correctly than their
like-minded colleagues in Germany frequently do when they defend rotten
compromises with the opportunists. The fact that they came out openly with
their resolution gave rise to an extremely important debate on principles,
and this debate will have a very strong effect on the British working
class. Liberal labour policy persists owing to tradition, routine and the
agility of opportunist leaders. But its bankruptcy among the mass of the
proletariat is inevitable.